Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

jm08

With the Chinese market opening up for Irish beef exports, it seems there maybe a problem in actually filling the orders.

https://www.checkout.ie/irish-beef-plants-worried-meeting-export-requirements-china/71334

They need more Irish processing plants to be approved but it seems the Chinese are very slow with the paperwork!


Major marketing drive in 2016 to Germany:

In 2016, Ireland exported 23,000t of beef to Germany, a doubling in volume since 2012 (from 11,500t). According to Bord Bia, this figure is expected to reach 30,000t by 2018.

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/irish-beef-exports-to-germany-grow-as-bord-bia-launches-new-campaign/

murphaph

jm08 wrote: »

With the Chinese market opening up for Irish beef exports, it seems there maybe a problem in actually filling the orders.



https://www.checkout.ie/irish-beef-plants-worried-meeting-export-requirements-china/71334


They need more Irish processing plants to be approved but it seems the Chinese are very slow with the paperwork!

Mad world. The UK seems hell bent on replacing Irish beef with cheaper alternatives while the Chinese can't get enough Irish beef.

It's sold as a premium product here in Germany too. Clearly labelled and usually with a picture of a heifer in a lush green field. Brexit forcing the hand of Irish agri-food could really open up opportunities. Even the potential within the single market must be huge.

Strazdas

murphaph wrote: »

Mad world. The UK seems hell bent on replacing Irish beef with cheaper alternatives while the Chinese can't get enough Irish beef.

It's sold as a premium product here in Germany too. Clearly labelled and usually with a picture of a heifer in a lush green field. Brexit forcing the hand of Irish agri-food could really open up opportunities. Even the potential within the single market must be huge.

Ireland has a strong reputation in Europe as a lush, green place with clean air. The country is often referred to as "the green island" in the German press (same in France).

10000maniacs

More reason why we need a firm backstop. Apparently the Backstop is not enforceable. Tory MP Tom Tugendhat on Politics today said
"The backstop is just a temporary agreement and like all agreements we can walk away. Yes we can walk away but there will be a reputational risk if we walk away without an agreement, sure, but we can walk away. There is no EU army that is going to invade. There is in that sense not the constraint that's being set up. We need to be frank about that and say this is a 2 year transition agreement that may be extended by a bit. We need an honest admission from our EU partners that the backstop is not enforceable. What are you trying to trap us into? It will not work. It is not realistic. Given that you can't do that, what are you trying to achieve?
Can you actually stop the UK from taking a sovereign decision to walk away? The backstop is a confidence building measure between the EU, The ROI and the UK to ensure we will not harm in any way the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, now that's a very reasonable thing to ask for, but the idea that it is in some way inviolable and can never be breached is not true, and so the idea that we are arguing about the inviolability of it rather than building on the practical element of how we work together is silly."

Strazdas

10000maniacs wrote: »

More reason why we need a firm backstop. Apparently the Backstop is not enforceable. Tory MP Tom Tugendhat on Politics today said
"The backstop is just a temporary agreement and like all agreements we can walk away. Yes we can walk away but there will be a reputational risk if we walk away without an agreement, sure, but we can walk away. There is no EU army that is going to invade. There is in that sense not the constraint that's being set up. We need to be frank about that and say this is a 2 year transition agreement that may be extended by a bit. We need an honest admission from our EU partners that the backstop is not enforceable. What are you trying to trap us into? It will not work. It is not realistic. Given that you can't do that, what are you trying to achieve?
Can you actually stop the UK from taking a sovereign decision to walk away? The backstop is a confidence building measure between the EU, The ROI and the UK to ensure we will not harm in any way the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, now that's a very reasonable thing to ask for, but the idea that it is in some way inviolable and can never be breached is not true, and so the idea that we are arguing about the inviolability of it rather than building on the practical element of how we work together is silly."

This is the real agenda of the ERG. They couldn't give a toss about Ireland and the border, they just want out of the EU at all costs.

MrMusician18

Strazdas wrote: »

This is the real agenda of the ERG. They couldn't give a toss about Ireland and the border, they just want out of the EU at all costs.

Well technically he is correct. The UK can walk away at any time. It's just the whole deal in all it's parts falls apart too at the same time.

Reputation damage aside, it wouldn't be really any different to hard crash out Brexit.

fash

Hurrache wrote: »

A continuation of the theme of the UK gov talking out of both sides of their mouth from yesterday after the speech saying we need EU help on Brexit because we're all friends, but there'll be consequences if you don't let us trade with Saudi Arabia
https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1098490103129874434

Correction: if you don't allow us to sell your stuff to Saudi against the sovereign decision of your parliament.
Taking control is only a good thing if it is held by a Tory.

10000maniacs

Strazdas wrote: »

This is the real agenda of the ERG. They couldn't give a toss about Ireland and the border, they just want out of the EU at all costs.

If Tom Tugendhat is of the same calibre as the types of people left in the Tory party administering the Brexit deal, maybe the EU should let them speed over the cliff without a deal. We should never ever trust the Tories on Ireland.

lawred2

10000maniacs wrote: »

More reason why we need a firm backstop. Apparently the Backstop is not enforceable. Tory MP Tom Tugendhat on Politics today said
"The backstop is just a temporary agreement and like all agreements we can walk away. Yes we can walk away but there will be a reputational risk if we walk away without an agreement, sure, but we can walk away. There is no EU army that is going to invade. There is in that sense not the constraint that's being set up. We need to be frank about that and say this is a 2 year transition agreement that may be extended by a bit. We need an honest admission from our EU partners that the backstop is not enforceable. What are you trying to trap us into? It will not work. It is not realistic. Given that you can't do that, what are you trying to achieve?
Can you actually stop the UK from taking a sovereign decision to walk away? The backstop is a confidence building measure between the EU, The ROI and the UK to ensure we will not harm in any way the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, now that's a very reasonable thing to ask for, but the idea that it is in some way inviolable and can never be breached is not true, and so the idea that we are arguing about the inviolability of it rather than building on the practical element of how we work together is silly."

and he expects everything else agreed to remain agreed?

VinLieger

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Well technically he is correct. The UK can walk away at any time. It's just the whole deal in all it's parts falls apart too at the same time.

Reputation damage aside, it wouldn't be really any different to hard crash out Brexit.

True but if they signed up to the WA and then walked away from it their word would literally be mud in any negotiations with other countries for decades to come. Even the smaller countries the ERG are claiming they will be doing all kinds of deals with would be able to toss them around the room in negotiations.

Leroy42

Of course he is correct, just as they can walk away right now. Nothing the EU/Ireland or whomever can actually do to stop them.

So why haven't they? And that is the question the interviewer should be asking? Why all this negotiation and drawn out affair?

They will reply with some cliche about friendship and shared values. Which regardless of the factual basis of, should then be asked why that won't be important in the future.

lawred2

Leroy42 wrote: »

Of course he is correct, just as they can walk away right now. Nothing the EU/Ireland or whomever can actually do to stop them.

So why haven't they? And that is the question the interviewer should be asking? Why all this negotiation and drawn out affair?

They will reply with some cliche about friendship and shared values. Which regardless of the factual basis of, should then be asked why that won't be important in the future.

threatening to walk away without holding to an agreement is a strange demonstration of friendship and shared values..

why are these people given such free rein?

Strazdas

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Well technically he is correct. The UK can walk away at any time. It's just the whole deal in all it's parts falls apart too at the same time.

Reputation damage aside, it wouldn't be really any different to hard crash out Brexit.

The alarming part of this is that he is saying even if the UK ratifies the deal, as far as he is concerned, this is meaningless and there is nothing Ireland and the EU can do to stop the UK reneging on the deal the moment it is out of the EU.

Strazdas

VinLieger wrote: »

True but if they signed up to the WA and then walked away from it their word would literally be mud in any negotiations with other countries for decades to come. Even the smaller countries the ERG are claiming they will be doing all kinds of deals with would be able to toss them around the room in negotiations.

Given that many in the ERG favour a car crash Brexit, this aspect mightn't even bother them. It's almost as if they actively want to burn their bridges with everyone.

First Up

Strazdas wrote:

The alarming part of this is that he is saying even if the UK ratifies the deal, as far as he is concerned, this is meaningless and there is nothing Ireland and the EU can do to stop the UK reneging on the deal the moment it is out of the EU.

Making yourself an untrustworthy partner has consequences for trade and especially investment.

Daily Express headline writers might indulge in hyperbole after boozy lunches but it would be a grevious error for the UK to follow that sort of stuff.

Tell me how

There is a definite sense of Brexit fatigue going on. I've noticed it on a real world level where some who were very eager to discuss it over the last couple of years now just shrug their shoulders and say "it's some disaster".

I myself the last couple of weeks have been sick of hearing the same old non story being rotated again and again.

Makes you think that political groups must often just wait for the audience to get tired of a topic and move on. Then, it'll have been in the open and they can argue it is behind them which is better in some ways than something which has yet to be revealed.

MrMusician18

Tell me how wrote: »

There is a definite sense of Brexit fatigue going on. I've noticed it on a real world level where some who were very eager to discuss it over the last couple of years now just shrug their shoulders and say "it's some disaster".

I myself the last couple of weeks have been sick of hearing the same old non story being rotated again and again.

Makes you think that political groups must often just wait for the audience to get tired of a topic and move on. Then, it'll have been in the open and they can argue it is behind them which is better in some ways than something which has yet to be revealed.

This happens all the time. Look for example at the children's hospital, big news now and given the issues identified, it won't be resolved fully until at least a year after it opens.

The news cycle will move on, it might be occasionally referenced, but unless there's further major over runs, it's likely it won't be a big negative story again.

Waiting a story out is a legitimate political strategy. It works well in Ireland, and proponents are said to have a brass neck

An Ciarraioch

http://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1098491440232128512

Is it an option to give them their temporary backstop, but if the UK pull out of it without EU agreement, they break all ties and are back where they would be with no deal?

Cryptopagan

My understanding is they are working on a proposal under which Britain could unilaterally pull out of the backstop, but Northern Ireland would have to be left in. Could well be acceptable to EU, certainly not to the DUP though.

kunst nugget

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it an option to give them their temporary backstop, but if the UK pull out of it without EU agreement, they break all ties and are back where they would be with no deal?

Eh, is that not what's on offer anyway? The backstop isn't meant to be anything but a temporary arrangement if it ever has to be used.

Leroy42

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

http://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1098491440232128512

But they are just about to finish a two year period during which they came up with nothing. Why would the EU then give them a shorter window?

Will the GFA disappear during this one year? It makes no sense.

They continually talk about FTA and friendships and shared values but then say they don't trust the EU and want to be able to rip up a deal whenever they like.

Why 1 year? Why not 2, or 5 or seven?

An Ciarraioch

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Is it an option to give them their temporary backstop, but if the UK pull out of it without EU agreement, they break all ties and are back where they would be with no deal?

That brings us back to the temporary versus time-limited situation, with the Brexiteers rejecting everything but the latter.

Leroy42

Cryptopagan wrote: »

My understanding is they are working on a proposal under which Britain could unilaterally pull out of the backstop, but Northern Ireland would have to be left in. Could well be acceptable to EU, certainly not to the DUP though.

That was the original idea of the backstop. It was only ever intended to relate to NI. It was TM who demanded, and tbf got the concession, from the EU that it was UK wide.

So they can have GB unilateral leave if they want I suppose, but it then brings TM straight back into conflict with the DUP and her stated position that no PM could ever agree to such a situation.

c.p.w.g.w

Is anyone else picturing a wwe style Sinn Fein entrance to the HOC to form a government with the Tories after the DUP keep rejecting the backstop for Norn. Ireland.

In my head it's humourous, but certainly never going to happen.

What % of seats do the DUP have for Norn. Ireland compared to Sinn Fein?

gmisk

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Is anyone else picturing a wwe style Sinn Fein entrance to the HOC to form a government with the Tories after the DUP keep rejecting the backstop for Norn. Ireland.

In my head it's humourous, but certainly never going to happen.

What % of seats do the DUP have for Norn. Ireland compared to Sinn Fein?

DUP

house of commons 10/18
NI assembly 27/90


Sinn fein
house of commons 7/18
NI assembly 27/90



(Sylvia Hermon is the other seat northern ireland have in the commons - she is an independent and is pro remain)

Podge_irl

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it an option to give them their temporary backstop, but if the UK pull out of it without EU agreement, they break all ties and are back where they would be with no deal?

This is always an option for the UK no matter what.

Imreoir2

Cryptopagan wrote: »

My understanding is they are working on a proposal under which Britain could unilaterally pull out of the backstop, but Northern Ireland would have to be left in. Could well be acceptable to EU, certainly not to the DUP though.

Having insisted that the backstop be made UK wide, they are now going to turn around and insist that the UK government must have the right to walk away from the backstop being UK wide despite the fact that it was them that wanted it to be UK wide in the first place?

A merry dance they are leading.

Podge_irl

Podge_irl wrote: »

This is always an option for the UK no matter what.

So I really don't understand why they don't take the deal

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

So I really don't understand why they don't take the deal

They want all the benefits of a deal without the backstop, they don't want to have to go into no-deal territory to get away from the backstop.